Mythes

Er kleven een hoop misverstanden rond bitcoin.

Het milieu & de kosten van Bitcoin

Bitcoin mining verspilt energie en is slecht voor het milieu

Zie artikel Energieverbruik voor uitleg

Waarom bitcoin wel of geen waarde heeft

Bitcoin is net als alle andere digitale munten / cryptovaluta

Bijna alle andere digitale valuta zijn gecentraliseerd. Ze hebben vaak een openbaar bedrijf, stichting of actieve oprichter. Dat heeft een paar belangrijke nadelen:

• De uitgifte staat niet vast en de munt of token kan naar wens van de centrale partij bijgemaakt worden
• Het netwerk kan makkelijk aangevallen of zelfs neergehaald worden door de centrale partij aan te vallen
• De centrale partij kan arbitraire nieuwe regels maken.

Omdat Bitcoin volledig decentraal is (iedereen met een node verifieert de consensus-regels zelf) en geen actieve oprichter heeft (niemand weet wie Satoshi Nakamoto was, en hij is niet meer actief), lost Bitcoin al deze problemen op.

Bitcoin lost geen probleem op, goud / ons huidige geldsysteem is prima

Bitcoin heeft een aantal belangrijke voordelen ten opzichte van goud. Het is namelijk:

• Makkelijk te verplaatsen (het is digitaal)
• Makkelijk te beveiligen (je hebt geen grote kluis nodig)
• Makkelijk te verifiëren (een node kost zo'n €200, apparatuur om de puurheid van goud te meten kost duizenden euro's)
• Makkelijk op te delen (een bitcoin is op te delen in 100 miljoen stukjes; sats)

Bitcoin heeft ook een aantal belangrijke voordelen ten opzichte van overheidsgeld:

• De hoeveelheid bitcoin is voorspelbaar en gelimiteerd
• Het wordt niet door een centrale autoriteit bestuurd, zoals de ECB
• Bitcoin is niet op schulden gebaseerd

Zeker ten opzichte van elektronisch overheidsgeld heeft het belangrijke voordelen:

• Het is meer privé, mits correct gebruikt
• Het kan niet zomaar van je afgepakt of vastgehouden worden door de bank
• Via lightning sneller en goedkoper te versturen

Bitcoin heeft waarde dankzij computerkracht

Het is niet helemaal correct om te zeggen dat de waarde van bitcoin van de computerkracht komt. Bitcoin heeft waarde omdat mensen er subjectieve waarde aan toekennen. Dit bitcoins worden wél door computerkracht gecreeërd, en de integriteit van de blockchain wordt beschermd door diezelfde computerkracht.

De waarde van bitcoin is gebaseerd op de hoeveelheid elektriciteit die het kost om deze te minen

Deze stelling doet een poging de labor theory of value, die als foutief wordt gezien, op bitcoin toe te passen. Alleen het feit dat iets X bronnen vereist om te creëren betekend niet dat het resultaat ook X waard is. De waarde kan hoger of lager zijn, afhankelijk van de bruikbaarheid voor de gebruikers.

In feite is de causaliteit zelfs het omgekeerde hiervan (dit gaat op voor "the labor theory of value" in het algemeen). De kosten voor het minen zijn gebaseerd op wat het resultaat aan waarde opleverd. Als de waarde van bitcoin stijgt zal er meer gemined worden (omdat mining winstgevender wordt) hierdoor gaat de difficulty omhoog en hierdoor gaan de kosten voor mining weer omhoog. Het omgekeerde gebeurt wanneer de bitcoin waarde daalt. Deze effecten keren uiteindelijk terug naar een equilibrium waarbij de kosten om bitcoin te minen proportioneel zijn met wat de geproduceerde bitcoin aan waarde vertegenwoordigen.

Bitcoin heeft geen intrinsieke waarde (maar andere dingen wel)

This is simply not true. Each bitcoin gives the holder the ability to embed a large number of short in-transaction messages in a globally distributed and timestamped permanent data store, namely the bitcoin blockchain. There is no other similar datastore which is so widely distributed. There is a tradeoff between the exact number of messages and how quickly they can be embedded. But as of December 2013, it's fair to say that one bitcoin allows around 1000 such messages to be embedded, each within about 10 minutes of being sent, since a fee of 0.001 BTC is enough to get transactions confirmed quickly. This message embedding certainly has intrinsic value since it can be used to prove ownership of a document at a certain time, by including a one-way hash of that document in a transaction. Considering that electronic notarization services charge something like $10/document, this would give an intrinsic value of around $10,000 per bitcoin.

While some other tangible commodities do have intrinsic value, that value is generally much less than its trading price. Consider for example that gold, if it were not used as an inflation-proof store of value, but rather only for its industrial uses, would certainly not be worth what it is today, since the industrial requirements for gold are far smaller than the available supply thereof.

In any event, while historically intrinsic value, as well as other attributes like divisibility, fungibility, scarcity, durability, helped establish certain commodities as mediums of exchange, it is certainly not a prerequisite. While bitcoins are accused of lacking 'intrinsic value' in this sense, they make up for it in spades by possessing the other qualities necessary to make it a good medium of exchange, equal to or better than commodity money.

Another way to think about this is to consider the value of bitcoin the global network, rather than each bitcoin in isolation. The value of an individual telephone is derived from the network it is connected to. If there was no phone network, a telephone would be useless. Similarly the value of an individual bitcoin derives from the global network of bitcoin-enabled merchants, exchanges, wallets, etc... Just like a phone is necessary to transmit vocal information through the network, a bitcoin is necessary to transmit economic information through the network.

Value is ultimately determined by what people are willing to trade for - by supply and demand.

Zie ook het stuk van lekkercryptisch.nl.

Bitcoin, overheden en controle op de economie

Bitcoin is illegaal want het is geen wettig betaalmiddel

In March 2013, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issues a new set of guidelines on "de-centralized virtual currency", clearly targeting Bitcoin. Under the new guidelines, "a user of virtual currency is not a Money Services Businesses (MSB) under FinCEN's regulations and therefore is not subject to MSB registration, reporting, and record keeping regulations." Miners, when mining bitcoins for their own personal use, aren't required to register as a MSB or Money Transmitter.

In general, there are a number of currencies in existence that are not official government-backed currencies. A currency is, after all, nothing more than a convenient unit of account. While national laws may vary from country to country, and you should certainly check the laws of your jurisdiction, in general trading in any commodity, including digital currency like Bitcoin, BerkShares, game currencies like WoW gold, or Linden dollars, is not illegal.

Bitcoin is terrorisme want het schaadt de economische stabiliteit

According to the definition of terrorism in the United States, you need to do violent activities to be considered a terrorist for legal purposes. Recent off-the-cuff remarks by politicians have no basis in law or fact.

Also, Bitcoin isn't domestic to the US or any other country. It's a worldwide community, as can be seen in this map of Bitcoin nodes.

Bitcoin zorgt alleen maar voor belastingontduiking en zal leiden tot het einde van onze maatschappij

Cash transactions offer an increased level of anonymity, yet are still taxed successfully. It is up to you to follow the applicable tax laws in your home country, or face the consequences.

While it may be easy to transfer bitcoins pseudonymously, spending them on tangibles is just as hard as spending any other kind of money anonymously. Tax evaders are often caught because their lifestyle and assets are inconsistent with their reported income, and not necessarily because government is able to follow their money.

Finally, the Bitcoin block chain is a permanent record of all transactions, meaning it can be mined for info at any time in the future making investigation, tracing of funds, etc much easier than with other forms of payment.

Een eindige hoeveelheid bitcoin leidt tot deflatie

As deflationary forces may apply, economic factors such as hoarding are offset by human factors that may lessen the chances that a Deflationary spiral will occur.

Bitcoin kan niet werken omdat er geen controle is op inflatie

Inflation is simply a rise of prices over time, which is generally the result of the devaluing of a currency. This is a function of supply and demand. Given the fact that the supply of bitcoins is fixed at a certain amount, unlike fiat money, the only way for inflation to get out of control is for demand to disappear. Temporary inflation is possible with a rapid adoption of Fractional Reserve Banking but will stabilize once a substantial number of the 21 million "hard" bitcoins are stored as reserves by banks.

Given the fact that Bitcoin is a distributed system of currency, if demand were to decrease to almost nothing, the currency would be doomed anyway.

The key point here is that Bitcoin as a currency can't be inflated by any single person or entity, like a government, as there's no way to increase supply past a certain amount.

Indeed, the most likely scenario, as Bitcoin becomes more popular and demand increases, is for the currency to increase in value, or deflate, until demand stabilizes.

Je kan niet fractioneel bankieren

It is possible. See the main article, Fractional Reserve Banking and Bitcoin

Bitcoin zal worden gestopt door de overheid

Liberty Dollars started as a commercial venture to establish an alternative US currency, including physical banknotes and coins, backed by precious metals. This, in and of itself, is not illegal. They were prosecuted under counterfeiting laws because the silver coins allegedly resembled US currency.

Bitcoins do not resemble the currency of the US or of any other nation in any way, shape, or form. The word "dollar" is not attached to them in any way. The "$" symbol is not used in any way.

Bitcoins have no representational similarity whatsoever to US dollars.

Of course, actually 'shutting down' Liberty Dollars was as easy as arresting the head of the company and seizing the offices and the precious metals used as backing. The decentralized Bitcoin, with no leader, no servers, no office, and no tangible asset backing, does not have the same vulnerability.

Bitcoin is illegaal

There is no known governmental regulation which disallows the use of Bitcoin.

Net als Flooz en e-gold is bitcoin voor criminelen en zal worden gestopt

• Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and cash all serve as opportunities for criminals as well, but society keeps them around due to their recognized net benefit.
• Hopefully Bitcoin will grow to the point where no single organization can disrupt the network, or would be better served by helping it.
• Terrorists fly aircraft into buildings, but the governments have not yet abolished consumer air travel. Obviously the public good outweighs the possible bad in their opinion.
• Criminal law differs between jurisdictions.

Bitcoin is speculatief / een zeepbel / een piramidespel

Zie ook het artikel van lekkercryptisch.nl.

Mensen die eerder instappen hebben een oneerlijk voordeel

Early adopters are rewarded for taking the higher risk with their time and money. The capital invested in bitcoin at each stage of its life invigorated the community and helped the currency to reach subsequent milestones. Arguing that early adopters do not deserve to profit from this is akin to saying that early investors in a company, or people who buy stock at a company IPO (Initial Public Offering), are unfairly rewarded.

This argument also depends on bitcoin early adopters using bitcoins to store rather than transfer value. The daily trade on the exchanges (as of Jan 2012) indicates that smaller transactions are becoming the norm, indicating trade rather than investment. In more pragmatic terms, "fairness" is an arbitrary concept that is improbable to be agreed upon by a large population. Establishing "fairness" is no goal of Bitcoin, as this would be impossible.

Looking forwards, considering the amount of publicity bitcoin received as of April 2013, there can be no reasonable grounds for complaint for people who did not invest at that time, and then see the value (possibly) rising drastically higher.

By starting to mine or acquire bitcoins today, you too can become an early adopter.

Bitcoins kunnen door iedereen worden gemaakt/gemined en zijn daarom waardeloos

Bitcoins are not printed/minted. Instead, blocks are computed by miners and for their efforts they are awarded a specific amount of bitcoins and transaction fees paid by others. See Mining for more information on how this process works.

Het is een groot Ponzi-scheme

In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy.

A Ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. In a Ponzi scheme, early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters, and the late adopters always lose. Bitcoin can have a win-win outcome. Earlier adopters profit from the rise in value as Bitcoin becomes better understood and in turn demanded by the public at large. All adopters benefit from the usefulness of a reliable and widely-accepted decentralized peer-to-peer currency.

It is also important to note that Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of bitcoin, has never spent a bitcoin (other than giving them away when they were worthless) which we can verify by checking the blockchain.

Bitcoin is een piramidespel

Bitcoin is nearly opposite of a pyramid scheme in a mathematical sense. Because Bitcoins are algorithmically made scarce, no exponential benefit is derived from introducing new users to use of it. There is a quantitative benefit in having additional interest or demand, but this is in no way exponential.

Bitcoin is net als tulpenbollen!

Zie Tulpenbollen

Bitcoin wordt bestuurd door...

Miners, ontwikkelaars of anderen kunnen Bitcoin voor eigen gewin aanpassen

De eigenschappen van Bitcoin kunnen niet zomaar gewijzigd worden - iedereen die een full node draait controleert voor zichzelf of transacties zich aan de afgesproken regels houden. Transacties kunnen niet gesensureerd worden zo lang niet één enkel persoon of groep mensen meer dan 50% van de rekenkracht op het netwerk bezit (en zelfs dan is censuur lastig).

Om bitcoin een goede vorm van geld te laten zijn, moeten er bepaalde eigenschappen door het netwerk gegarandeerd worden, bijvoorbeeld:

• Niemand kan geld uit het niets creeëren (behalve miners, die het alleen volgens een vast schema kunnen)
• Niemand kan bitcoin uitgeven zonder de private key te weten
• Niemand kan dezelfde bitcoin twee keer uitgeven
• Niemand overtreed de andere randvoorwaarden die in het netwerk gesteld worden

Dit zijn niet zomaar regels van bitcoin, de regels definiëren bitcoin. Een full node controleert een transactie op alle regels. Zodra een transactie zich niet aan de regels houdt, zal een node hem niet accepteren; net zoals dat een goudsmit geen messing zou accepteren.

Iedere wat meer technische bitcoingebruiker zou voor zichzelf een full node moeten draaien, in het bijzonder als je een bedrijf hebt dat bitcoin als betaling accepteert. Dit zodat je zeker weet dat alle bitcoins die je ontvangt daadwerkelijk correcte bitcoins zijn die zich aan alle regels houden. Als je zelf geen node draait, vertrouw je namelijk de node en dus de regels van een ander.

Miners kunnen de regels van bitcoin niet veranderen. Ze kunnen wel transacties die zich niet aan de regels houdt in een blok stoppen; echter, in de praktijk zullen ze dit nooit doen. Minen kost immers een hoop elektriciteit, en dus ook een hoop geld. Als een miner een bitcoin blok mined dat met ongeldige transacties, zullen de nodes het blok niet accepteren. De miner heeft dus wel stroom verbruikt, maar krijgt er niets voor terug. Zo houden de nodes van het netwerk de miners eerlijk. Een coalitie van meer dan 50% van de computerkracht kan wél (in theorie én tegen zeer hoge kosten) de transactiegeschiedenis met andere maar valide transacties herschrijven. Het is dus noodzakelijk dat mining nooit op één centraal punt gebeurt. Dit is hoe groter het netwerk wordt ook steeds minder mogelijk. Er is op één plek in de wereld immers niet meer genoeg energie beschikbaar om dat voor elkaar te krijgen.

Ook invloedrijke figuren uit de community (zoals ontwikkelaars, politici of grote investeerders als Tesla) kunnen hun invloed proberen te gebruiken om mensen te overtuigen andere regels voor het bitcoin netwerk te gaan gebruiken. Zo lang tegengeluiden zich vrij door de media kunnen verspreiden, zal dit waarschijnlijk niet gebeuren. Iedereen zal dus voor zichzelf moeten overwegen of een software 'upgrade' nog wel in lijn is met de regels die zijn afgesproken. Hierom is full-node software altijd open source en in te zien door programmeurs. Hoewel niet iedereen de code zal kunnen lezen, zijn er veel ontwikkelaars op dagelijkse basis mee bezig die hun mening zullen laten horen. Zelfs al zou een regelverandering plaatsvinden waar je het niet mee eens bent, kun je altijd nog de oude software blijven draaien zodat je alleen de bitcoin ontvangt die zich aan jouw regels houdt.

Bitcoin is niet gedecentraliseerd want de ontwikkelaars bepalen de richting

The Bitcoin protocol was originally defined by Bitcoin's inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, and this protocol has now been widely accepted as the standard by the community of miners and users.

Though the developers of the original Bitcoin client still exert influence over the Bitcoin community, their power to arbitrarily modify the protocol is very limited. Since the release of Bitcoin v0.3, changes to the protocol have been minor and always in agreement with community consensus.

Protocol modifications, such as increasing the block award from 25 to 50 BTC, are not compatible with clients already running in the network. If the developers were to release a new client that the majority of miners perceives as corrupt, or in violation of the project’s aims, that client would simply not catch on, and the few users who do try to use it would find that their transactions get rejected by the network.

There are also other Bitcoin clients made by other developers that adhere to the Bitcoin protocol. As more developers create alternative clients, less power will lie with the developers of the original Bitcoin client.

De veiligheid van Bitcoin

Bitcoins zijn waardeloos omdat ze met onbewezen cryptografie werken

SHA-256 and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) which are used in Bitcoin are well-known industry standard algorithms. SHA-256 is endorsed and used by the US Government and is standardized (FIPS180-3 Secure Hash Standard). If you believe that these algorithms are untrustworthy then you should not trust Bitcoin, credit card transactions or any type of electronic bank transfer. Bitcoin has a sound basis in well understood cryptography.

Bitcoins worden opgeslagen in bestanden, je kan gewoon de bestanden kopieëren om meer bitcoin te maken!

No, your wallet contains your secret keys, giving you the rights to spend your bitcoins. Think of it like having bank details stored in a file. If you give your bank details (or bitcoin wallet) to someone else, that doesn't double the amount of money in your account. You can spend your money or they can spend your money, but not both.

Iedereen met genoeg computerkracht kan het netwerk overnemen

This is true: see Attacker has a lot of computing power.

That said, as the network grows, it becomes harder and harder for a single entity to do so. Already the Bitcoin network's computing power is quite ahead of the world's fastest supercomputers, together.

What an attacker can do once the network is taken over is quite limited. Under no circumstances could an attacker create counterfeit coins, fake transactions, or take anybody else's money. An attacker's capabilities are limited to taking back their own money that they very recently spent, and preventing other people's transactions from receiving confirmations. Such an attack would be very costly in resources, and for such meager benefits there is little rational economic incentive to do such a thing.

Furthermore, this attack scenario would only be feasible for as long as it was actively underway. As soon as the attack stopped, the network would resume normal operation.

Nadat er 21 miljoen bitcoin gemaakt zijn zal niemand meer blokken minen

When operating costs can't be covered by the block creation bounty, which will happen some time before the total amount of BTC is reached, miners will earn some profit from transaction fees. However unlike the block reward, there is no coupling between transaction fees and the need for security, so there is less of a guarantee that the amount of mining being performed will be sufficient to maintain the network's security.

Quantum computers zullen bitcoin kapotmaken

While ECDSA is indeed not secure under quantum computing, quantum computers don't yet exist and probably won't for a while. The DWAVE system often written about in the press is, even if all their claims are true, not a quantum computer of a kind that could be used for cryptography. Bitcoin's security, when used properly with a new address on each transaction, depends on more than just ECDSA: Cryptographic hashes are much stronger than ECDSA under QC.

Bitcoin's security was designed to be upgraded in a forward compatible way and could be upgraded if this were considered an imminent threat (cf. Aggarwal et al. 2017, "Quantum attacks on Bitcoin, and how to protect against them").

See the implications of quantum computers on public key cryptography.

The risk of quantum computers is also there for financial institutions, like banks, because they heavily rely on cryptography when doing transactions.

Bitcoin werd gehackt

In the history of Bitcoin, there has never been an attack on the block chain that resulted in stolen money from a confirmed output. Neither has there ever been a reported theft resulting directly from a vulnerability in the Original Bitcoin client, or a vulnerability in the protocol. Bitcoin is secured by standard cryptographic functions. These functions have been peer reviewed by cryptography experts and are considered unlikely to be breakable in the foreseeable future.

It is safe to say that the currency itself has never been 'hacked'. However, several major websites using the currency have been hacked, often resulting in high profile Bitcoin heists. These heists are misreported in some media as hacks on Bitcoin itself. An analogy: just because someone stole US dollars from a supermarket till, doesn’t mean that the US dollar as a currency has been 'hacked'.

Most bitcoin thefts are the result of inadequate wallet security. In response to the wave of thefts in 2011 and 2012, the community has developed risk-mitigating measures such as wallet encryption, support for multiple signatures, offline wallet, Paper wallets, and Hardware wallets. As these measures gain adoption by merchants and users, the number of thefts drop.

De schaalbaarheid / bruikbaarheid van Bitcoin

21 miljoen munten zijn niet genoeg, het schaalt niet

One Bitcoin is divisible down to eight decimal places. There are really 2,099,999,997,690,000 (just over 2 quadrillion) maximum possible atomic units in the bitcoin system.

The value of "1 BTC" represents 100,000,000 of these. In other words, each bitcoin is divisible by up to 10⁸.

As the value of the unit of 1 BTC grew too large to be useful for day to day transactions, people started dealing in smaller units, such as milli-bitcoins (mBTC) or micro-bitcoins (μBTC).

Verloren munten kunnen niet worden vervangen en dat is niet oké

Bitcoins are divisible to 0.00000001, so there being fewer bitcoins remaining is not a problem for the currency itself. If you lose your coins, indirectly all other coins are worth more due to the reduced supply. Consider it a donation to all other bitcoin users.

A related question is: Why don't we have a mechanism to replace lost coins? The answer is that it is impossible to distinguish between a 'lost' coin and one that is simply sitting unused in someone's wallet. And for amounts that are provably destroyed or lost, there is no census that this is a bad thing and something that should be re-circulated.

Winkels kunnen hun prijzen niet in bitcoin neerzetten want de prijs is volatiel

The assumption is that bitcoins must be sold immediately to cover operating expenses. If the shopkeeper's back-end expenses were transacted in bitcoins as well, then the exchange rate would be irrelevant. Larger adoption of Bitcoin would make prices sticky. Future volatility is expected to decrease, as the size and depth of the market grows.

In the meantime, many merchants simply regularly pull the latest market rates from the exchanges and automatically update the prices on their websites. Also you might be able to buy a put option in order to sell at a fixed rate for a given amount of time. This would protect you from drops in price and simplify your operations for that time period.

Je kan verstuurde bitcoin niet terughalen (transacties zijn permanent) en dat is slecht

Bitcoin base-layer transactions are final and irreversible by design, but consumer protection can still built into bitcoin in other layers on top. The most practical way of doing this is multisig escrow. For example when trading over-the-counter, Secure_Trading#Use_an_Escrow_Service is essential protection.

It's worth noting that virtually all successful consumer-facing bitcoin businesses do indeed already implement some kind of consumer protection; Routine escrow was used by Localbitcoins, Silk Road and the bitcoin ebay-site Bitmit. Others such as online bitcoin casinos rely on their long-standing reputation, while others such as Coinbase.com rely on the legal and regulatory system.

The bitcoin method of routinely using escrow has benefits over competitors like credit cards. The security of credit cards is not very good which results in higher costs overall and the possibility of payments being reversed for months afterwards. By contrast when bitcoins have been released to the seller from escrow, they cannot be reversed as the coins are truly in the seller's possession. The requirement to use real-life names for credit cards and PayPal also excludes unbanked people and those from countries with less developed financial infrastructure. There are also downsides like bitcoin is not yet as widely accepted as credit cards and is not a front for providing lines of credit.

Overig

Bitcoiners zijn wappies/gekkies/complotdenkers

The members of the community vary in their ideological stances. While it may have been started by ideological enthusiasts, Bitcoin now speaks to a large number of regular pragmatic folks, who simply see its potential for reducing the costs and friction of global e-commerce.

Bitcoin zorgt dat zelfonderhoudende AI mogelijk wordt

, a theorized autonomous agent which utilizes humans to build itself and issues autonomous payments for improvement work done, is not a conscious entity. Whatever AI is possible, is not going to be magically more possible simply because it could incentivize human behaviour with pseudonymous Bitcoin payments.